Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Romanında 31 Mart Olayı'nın temsili
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2011
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Cumhuriyet’in laiklik projesi, onu bugün bir iktidar olarak somutlaştıran en kapsamlı devrimsel hareket olarak Türkiye siyasetini belirleyen konuların başında gelir. Buna bağlı olarak Kemalist söylemin laikliğin karanlık ötekisi olarak işaret ettiği ‘irtica’ kavramı yoğun tartışmalara neden olmuş ve Türkiye’de darbelere zemin hazırlamıştır. Bu bağlamda Türkiye demokratikleşme tarihini felç eden ‘irtica’ tartışmalarının tarihsel bir referansı olarak 31 Mart Olayı ise İmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e bir tarihsel miras olarak anlam değişikliğine uğrayarak intikal eder. Bağlamından koparılarak ele alınan 31Mart Olayı Türkiye’deki tarihsel blokların bir çatışma alanına dönüşmüş ve erken Cumhuriyet döneminde bugün kullanıldığı anlamlar çerçevesinde egemen söyleme eklemlenmiştir. Türkiye’de bugün mevcut sorunların bir çoğunun kaynağını görebileceğimiz bir zaman dilimi olarak erken Cumhuriyet dönemi tartışmaların kökenlerine gidebilmek için bize tarihsel bir zemin sunar. Erken Cumhuriyet dönemineintikal eden bu anlam değişikliği ile bir itham aracı olarak 31 Mart Olayı ise ‘irtica’ tartışmalarının dönüşümü kapsamında gündelik siyasete dahil olmuştur. Türkiye’de ulusdevletleşmesürecinde hep ele alınan bir konu olarak 31 Mart Olayı bir ulus-devlet inşa sürecinde, Benedict Anderson’ın ifade ettiği bağlamda, katkıda bulunan bir edebi form olarak romanın içinde bir temsil bulmuştur. Benjamin’in aurası ve Foucault’nun hapishane kavramı ile egemen söylemin çerçevesine bakılırken erken Cumhuriyetdönemi Türk romanında 31 Mart Olayının temsilinin bir fotoğrafı bir Cumhuriyet kanonu tartışmaları kapsamında çekilmeye çalışılmıştır.\r\n
Laicism project of the Republic, the most comprehensive revolutionary movement that concrete the Republic as a power today, is coming in the first place of issues that determine the politics of Turkey. Correspondingly, the notion of ‘reaction’ which is pointed out as “dark-other” of laicism by Kemalist discourse triggers intensive disputes and sets the stages for coup d'etats in Turkey. In this sense, the 31st March Incident, as a historical reference of ‘reaction’ disputes paralyzing Turkey’s democratization history, has devolved to the Republic from the Empire as a historical heritage with being experienced a change of its meaning. The 31st March Incident that is addressed by removed from its context, has turned into an area of conflict for the historical blocks in Turkey and has been articulated to sovereign discourse in the early Republic era with the framework of meanings used in these days. The early Republic era, a time period that we can see the origins of manifold current questions, sets a historical stage to retrace the disputes. The 31st March Incident, which has become an imputation medium with this change of meaning that has devolved to the early Republic era, has been included in everyday politics within the transformation of ‘reaction’ disputes. The 31st March Incident as an issue that had always been addressed in Turkey’s process of becoming a nation-state, has been represented in novel that contributes to a construction process of nation-state, within the context of that Benedict Anderson describes, as a literary form. Whereas looking at the framework of sovereign discourse with the concepts of Benjamin’s aura and Foucault’s prison, a picture of the 31st March Incident in the Turkish novel of early Republic era has been tried to take within the discussion of a Republican canon.
Laicism project of the Republic, the most comprehensive revolutionary movement that concrete the Republic as a power today, is coming in the first place of issues that determine the politics of Turkey. Correspondingly, the notion of ‘reaction’ which is pointed out as “dark-other” of laicism by Kemalist discourse triggers intensive disputes and sets the stages for coup d'etats in Turkey. In this sense, the 31st March Incident, as a historical reference of ‘reaction’ disputes paralyzing Turkey’s democratization history, has devolved to the Republic from the Empire as a historical heritage with being experienced a change of its meaning. The 31st March Incident that is addressed by removed from its context, has turned into an area of conflict for the historical blocks in Turkey and has been articulated to sovereign discourse in the early Republic era with the framework of meanings used in these days. The early Republic era, a time period that we can see the origins of manifold current questions, sets a historical stage to retrace the disputes. The 31st March Incident, which has become an imputation medium with this change of meaning that has devolved to the early Republic era, has been included in everyday politics within the transformation of ‘reaction’ disputes. The 31st March Incident as an issue that had always been addressed in Turkey’s process of becoming a nation-state, has been represented in novel that contributes to a construction process of nation-state, within the context of that Benedict Anderson describes, as a literary form. Whereas looking at the framework of sovereign discourse with the concepts of Benjamin’s aura and Foucault’s prison, a picture of the 31st March Incident in the Turkish novel of early Republic era has been tried to take within the discussion of a Republican canon.
